October 13th 2023.
The U.S. Supreme Court has maintained a block on restrictions imposed by lower courts on the ability of President Joe Biden's administration to encourage social media companies to remove content deemed as misinformation. This includes content about elections and COVID-19.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito has temporarily put a pause on a preliminary injunction constraining how the White House and certain other federal officials communicate with social media platforms. This move was made to allow the administration to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
The Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, along with a group of social media users, have launched a lawsuit against federal officials. They claim that the administration has unlawfully helped suppress conservative-leaning speech on platforms such as Meta's Facebook, Alphabet's YouTube and X, formerly called Twitter.
The Supreme Court's decision to maintain the block gives them more time to consider the administration's request to block the injunction issued by the lower court. This injunction was issued as it was concluded that administration officials likely coerced the companies into censoring certain posts. This censoring violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment free speech protections.
This case represents one of numerous legal battles underway pitting free speech against content moderation on the internet. It is a battle between Democrats, liberals, and conservatives, Republicans, with each side accusing the other of censorship.
The Biden administration has argued that its officials did nothing illegal. Instead, they were simply trying to mitigate the hazards of online misinformation, including misinformation about the pandemic, by alerting social media companies to content that violated their own policies.
A U.S. District Judge in Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction in July. The judge found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that the administration helped suppress "disfavored conservative speech" by suppressing views on masking, lockdowns and vaccines intended as public health measures during the pandemic or that questioned the validity of the 2020 election.
The 5th Circuit has narrowed the injunction, but affirmed that it constrains the White House, Office of the Surgeon General, FBI, CDC, and the U.S. Cybsecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken action to ensure that the matter is on hold until October 20th. This gives the justices more time to review the administration's request to block the injunction. It is yet to be seen how this legal battle will end and what the implications will be for free speech and content moderation in the digital age.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
